french_public_procurement_get_sources

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of conveying behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not require authentication, or what the returned data structure looks like. It is reasonably transparent for a simple listing tool, but could be more explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—one short sentence—and still conveys the essential purpose. There is no redundant information, and the structure is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what it does. Minor gaps include not specifying the output format (e.g., plain list of names, rich objects) or whether the list is static or dynamic, but these are not critical for calling the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to document. The description implies it takes no input, and the schema fully confirms this, achieving complete coverage. No ambiguity exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it lists curated sources used by this MCP. This is a specific verb-resource pair, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which fetch excerpts, search, or build watches) by explicitly focusing on source enumeration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It does not suggest using it as a preliminary step before search or fetch operations, nor does it mention any exclusions. The description is purely functional and leaves the usage context implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.